At the first post on this material, the thread got a little long — not loading well in some browsers, I hear.
So the comments are closed there, and open here.
In fashion we wish were different but seems all too typical, so-called skeptics of global warming defend their position with invective and insult. But they are vigorous about it. What do you think? What information can you contribute?
Here’s the post that set off the denialists, anti-science types and DDT sniffers, and a tiny few genuinely concerned but under-informed citizens:
Should be obviously silly for anyone to argue former divinity student Al Gore is evil, as this film implies despite the demurrer. It should also be obviously that it’s evil to call Gore wrong on these issues; but that doesn’t stop brown Earther critics of scientists and Al Gore.
I warned you about it earlier. Crank science sites across the internet feature news of another cheap hit on Rachel Carson and science in movie form.
“Not Evil, Just Wrong” is slated for release on October 18. This is the film that tried to intrude on the Rachel Carson film earlier this year, but managed to to get booked only at an elementary school in Seattle, Washington — Rachel Carson Elementary, a green school where the kids showed more sense than the film makers by voting to name the school after the famous scientist-author.
The film is both evil and wrong.
Errors just in the trailer:
- Claims that Al Gore said sea levels will rise catastrophically, “in the very near future.” Not in his movie, not in his writings or speeches. Not true. That’s a simple misstatement of what Gore said, and Gore had the science right.
- ” . . . [I]t wouldn’t be a bad thing for this Earth to warm up. In fact, ice is the enemy of life.” “Bad” in this case is a value judgment — global warming isn’t bad if you’re a weed, a zebra mussel, one of the malaria parasites, a pine bark beetle, any other tropical disease, or a sadist. But significant warming as climatologists, physicists and others project, would be disastrous to agriculture, major cities in many parts of the world, sea coasts, and most people who don’t live in the Taklamakan or Sahara, and much of the life in the ocean. Annual weather cycles within long-established ranges, is required for life much as we know it. “No ice” is also an enemy of life.
- “They want to raise our taxes.” No, that’s pure, uncomposted bovine excrement.
- “They want to close our factories.” That’s more effluent from the anus of male bovines.
- The trailer notes the usual claim made by Gore opponents that industry cannot exist if it is clean, that industry requires that we poison the planet. Were that true, we’d have a need to halt industry now, lest we become like the yeast in the beer vat, or the champagne bottle, manufacturing alcohol until the alcohol kills the yeast. Our experience with Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Air Acts and the Clean Water Act is that cleaning the environment produces economic growth, not the other way around. A city choked in pollution dies. Los Angeles didn’t suffer when the air got cleaner. Pittsburgh’s clean air became a way to attract new industries to the city, before the steel industry there collapsed. Cleaning Lake Erie didn’t hurt industry. The claim made by the film is fatuous, alarmist, and morally corrupt.
When the human health, human welfare, and environmental effects which could be expressed in dollar terms were added up for the entire 20-year period, the total benefits of Clean Air Act programs were estimated to range from about $6 trillion to about $50 trillion, with a mean estimate of about $22 trillion. These estimated benefits represent the estimated value Americans place on avoiding the dire air quality conditions and dramatic increases in illness and premature death which would have prevailed without the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act and its associated state and local programs. By comparison, the actual costs of achieving the pollution reductions observed over the 20 year period were $523 billion, a small fraction of the estimated monetary benefits.
- “Some of the environmental activists have not come to accept that the human is also part of the environment.” Fatuous claim. Environmentalists note that humans uniquely possess the ability to change climate on a global scale, intentionally, for the good or bad; environmentalists choose to advocate for actions that reduce diseases like malaria, cholera and asthma. We don’t have to sacrifice a million people a year to malaria, in order to be industrial and productive. We don’t have to kill 700,000 kids with malaria every year just to keep cars.
- “They want to go back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague.” No, that would be the film makers. Environmentalists advocate reducing filth and ignorance both. Ignorance and lack of ability to read, coupled with religious fanaticism, caused the strife known as “the Dark Ages.” It’s not environmentalists who advocate an end to cheap public schools.
- The trailer shows a kid playing in the surf on a beach. Of course, without the Clean Water Act and other attempts to keep the oceans clean, such play would be impossible. That we can play again on American beaches is a tribute to the environmental movement, and reason enough to grant credence to claims of smart people like Al Gore and the scientists whose work he promotes.
- “I cannot believe that Al Gore has great regard for people, real people.” So, this is a film promoting the views of crabby, misanthropic anal orifices who don’t know Al Gore at all? Shame on them. And, why should anyone want to see such a film? If I want to see senseless acts of stupidity, I can rent a film by Quentin Tarantino and get some art with the stupidity. [Update, November 23, 2009: This may be one of the most egregiously false charges of the film. Gore, you recall, is the guy who put his political career and presidential ambitions on hold indefinitely when his son was seriously injured in an auto-pedestrian accident; Gore was willing to sacrifice all his political capital in order to get his son healed. My first dealings directly with Gore came on the Organ Transplant bill. Gore didn’t need a transplant, didn’t have need for one in his family, and had absolutely nothing to gain from advocacy for the life-saving procedure. It was opposed by the chairman of his committee, by a majority of members of his own party in both Houses of Congress, by many in the medical establishment, by many in the pharmaceutical industry, and by President Reagan, who didn’t drop his threat to veto the bill until he signed it, as I recall. Gore is a man of deep, human-centered principles. Saying “I can’t believe Al Gore has great regard for real people” only demonstrates the vast ignorance and perhaps crippling animus of the speaker.]
That’s a whopper about every 15 seconds in the trailer — the film itself may make heads spin if it comes close to that pace of error.
Where have we seen this before? Producers of the film claim as “contributors” some of the people they try to lampoon — people like Ed Begley, Jr., and NASA’s James E. Hansen, people who don’t agree in any way with the hysterical claims of the film, and people who, I wager, would be surprised to be listed as “contributors.”
It’s easy to suppose these producers used the same ambush-the-scientist technique used earlier by the producers of the anti-science, anti-Darwin film “Expelled!“
Here, see the hysteria, error and alarmism for yourself:
Ann McElhinney is one of the film’s producers. Her past work includes other films against protecting environment and films for mining companies. She appears to be affiliated with junk science purveyors at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an astro-turf organization in Washington, D.C., for whom she flacked earlier this year (video from Desmogblog):
Remember, too, that this film is already known to have gross inaccuracies about Rachel Carson and DDT, stuff that high school kids could get right easily.
Anyone have details on McElhinney and her colleague, Phelim McAlee?
More:
- A few sane, scientific-minded people have noted the film, too.
- Ecorazzi had some sharp words
- Update, October 12, 2009: One of movie’s producers acting badly, as Al Gore provides evidence of the movie’s errors
Related posts, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
What is clear from the record going back over nearly four decades is that White House science czar John Holdren is a climate alarmist, even if he can’t make up his mind whether the crisis is the Earth warming up or cooling down. But long before Holdren was the global warming Cassandra he is today, he was a global cooling alarmist predicting a new ice age. In the 1970s, Holdren’s theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent “eco-disasters” such as the foreseen coming new ice age; today Holdren urges immediate passage of the Obama administration’s proposed cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from global warming.
Warning: Unsuitable for Children! Hexmate has purloined this comment from the Illuminati Conspiracy blog, from an article by certified liar Jerome Corsi.
LikeLike
Science: Another Ice Age?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html
Interesting! So this has gone on before.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Are you willing to stand up for ethics and call for prosecution of those who corrupted the process?”
No Ed it was a sting. Otherwise there would be no balance to this process and the morons could perpetrate the fraud they were cooking up without any chance of them getting caught. I suppose you want to claim that NOAA and NASA also had their information manipulated too? Pants on the ground Ed! LOL!
LikeLike
Ed said: “There have been no allegations of corruption. In fact, the investigation so far goes to who stole the e-mails. The only corruption revealed in the e-mails was appears to be a fixing of data by climate change denialists.”
Sure Ed what a creative excuse manufactured to try and hide the truth. Once they got caught it was all somebody elses fault or somebody else maniuplating the information. Too bad they dumped all of their data Ed maybe they could prove otherwise – but now they have nothing in their defense. They got caught with their PANTS ON THE GROUND ED! At least you share that malady with them. Is that something that you guys do all the time? LOL!
LikeLike
Ed said: “If you had the facts on your side, you wouldn’t have to sacrifice your honor and violate the Scout Law in such a fashion, Hexmate.”
Ed the facts are being reviewed by people with integrity who are more competent, and capable than you. Please don’t pretend that you have any skills or knowledge to the contrary that absolve the perpetrators of these fraudulent acts. The truth has already come out and to be looking for who hacked into them is nothing more than a scapegoat tactic. In reality they should give that person a medal. Scouts Law?! Ed what have you ever done that would qualify you to hide behind the Boy Scouts in light of your promotion of this global warming fraud you are trying to perpetrate on society? For that matter what have you EVER done for this country? Did you serve in the military Ed? Why not? Flat feet or something? Sorry Ed but the picture of you wearing a pair of Boy Scout shorts in my minds eye is hilarious! Pants on the ground Ed, pants on the ground – lookin like fool with your pants on the ground, and your hat turned to the side! Pull ’em up Ed and straighten out your hat. LOL!
LikeLike
Ligne said: “hard to tell for certain, since you seem incapable of providing references).”
Better to present facts that are public knowledge than to promote references to organizations that are not credible, provide fraudulent information, and bascially are involved in a conspriacy. Did you and Ed find some integrity you can buy yet?
LikeLike
Ligne said: “hold on a moment, Hexmate. you’re dismissing the work of the NSIDC wholesale,”
The organization is based on a scam, with a director who lost all credibility by making false claims, and now you want to rescue it because supposedly the remainder of their work is legitimate? You are dillusional Ligne!
LikeLike
Ligne said: “incidentally, i notice from the same site that sea ice extent is currently lower than 2007. think we might be in for another record-breaking year?”
That information has already been debunked Ligne. Wake up!
LikeLike
hold on a moment, Hexmate. you’re dismissing the work of the NSIDC wholesale, on the (as yet unsubstantiated) claim that they’re committing fraud. but at the same time, you’re willing to reference the DMI, who seem quite happy to use their data: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php . how is that not inconsistent on your part?
anyway, to address your point…presumably this is the page you’re referring to: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php (hard to tell for certain, since you seem incapable of providing references).
if you try clicking on the other dates on the left side of the page, you’ll notice current conditions are not particularly unusual for this time of year — comparable to the same point in 2008, for instance. and way warmer than 2000: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2000.png
incidentally, i notice from the same site that sea ice extent is currently lower than 2007. think we might be in for another record-breaking year? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
LikeLike
If you had the facts on your side, you wouldn’t have to sacrifice your honor and violate the Scout Law in such a fashion, Hexmate.
Here’s where you tell falsehoods:
There have been no allegations of corruption. In fact, the investigation so far goes to who stole the e-mails. The only corruption revealed in the e-mails was appears to be a fixing of data by climate change denialists.
Are you willing to stand up for ethics and call for prosecution of those who corrupted the process?
No, I didn’t think so.
LikeLike
Well Ed at least you are not involved in this directly but that is only because you are considered a liability, because your pants are on the ground again! LOL!
Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.
Not only does the preliminary report indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.
Climategate — American Style This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.
LikeLike
Ligne said: “yes you did say that, Hexmate. right here:”
No Ligne your head is still stuck. Pull it out so you can see. Pull your pants up boy!
LikeLike
Ed said: “I’m sorry, Hexmate, I was distracted. What was it you said, again?”
Arctic temperatures above 80°N are the lowest in six years. According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, Arctic temperatures are currently below 238K (-35.15 degrees Celsius or -31.27 degrees Fahrenheit) That is more than five degrees below normal (the green line) and the lowest reading since 2004. The slope of decline has also recently been quite sharp, dropping from 252K on January 1, a drop of 14 degrees in 22 days. The last time temperatures were this low in the Arctic was in February, 2004, where the 80N temperature reached 236K. Whoa Ed your pants are on the ground again – gee would please try to keep them on?
LikeLike
Ligne said: “by the way, i live in good ol’ Blighty. round here the emergency number is 999, not 911 ;-)”
Doesn’t matter now Ligne you’re already brain dead. Pants on the ground boy! :-)
LikeLike
Is Arctic sea ice healthy? Let’s ask the experts; HEY! EXPERTS!:
LikeLike
I’m sorry, Hexmate, I was distracted. What was it you said, again?
LikeLike
yes you did say that, Hexmate. right here: https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/the-curse-of-not-evil-just-wrong-still-evil-and-wrong/#comment-95529
more personal abuse and attacks on the NSIDC, with nary a scrap of evidence to be seen. please point out where their data is “skewed and bogus”. you’re not making your case very well, are you?
by the way, i live in good ol’ Blighty. round here the emergency number is 999, not 911 ;-)
LikeLike
Ed said: “Which NSIDC release? On what? Where is it? Which point are you trying to address?”
Funny Ed but Ligne said he found it. Are you a bigger moron than he is? Ed that case of rectal cranial inversion you have is reaching catastrophic proportions, you better get to the hospital right away. You got caught again Ed – pants on the ground, pants on the ground, lookin like fool with your pants on the ground – hat turned to the side! LOL! Ed please pull your pants up and straighten out your hat, the view is disgusting. Where – who – what – Ed you should turn yourself in
LikeLike
Ligne said: “you keep accusing the NSIDC of publishing bogus information, yet i’ve not seen you provide any evidence to this effect. not a *single scrap*. if you have evidence they are committing fraud, please report it to the relevant authorities, and stand behind your claims.”
Ligne you are as dumb as a rock. NSIDC didn’t even catch the error. Their data is all skewed and bogus. The whole organization is a fraud just like you but you can’t recognize it because you are one.
LikeLike
Ligne said: “no he didn’t, those were *your* words he was quoting. please pay more attention.”
Quick Ligne – call 911 your rectal cranial inversion is reaching the point of no return. I didn’t say that moron! Now pull your ears so you can see.
LikeLike
Hexmate sez: “Ed said: “Ed your source is flawed . . . ””
no he didn’t, those were *your* words he was quoting. please pay more attention.
LikeLike
i assume you mean the problem reported here? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
preliminary, pre-QA data was found to be faulty due to a failing satellite. within two days of the problem being reported, they’d pulled the wonky data, identified and corrected for the error, and published a fairly detailed explanation on their website. sounds like perfectly reasonable and ethical behaviour. if you disagree please explain how you would have done things differently in their place.
you keep accusing the NSIDC of publishing bogus information, yet i’ve not seen you provide any evidence to this effect. not a *single scrap*. if you have evidence they are committing fraud, please report it to the relevant authorities, and stand behind your claims.
LikeLike
Hexmate said:
Which NSIDC release? On what? Where is it? Which point are you trying to address?
LikeLike
Ed said: “Ed your source is flawed . . . ”
No Ed your source is a fraud – got that? Now you should go look for some integrity Ed and see if you can buy enough for you and Ligne. Neither of you have any.
LikeLike
Ed said: “You might be speaking truth, Hexmate. But how could we know? You offer nary a source, nary a link, and when Ligne offers sources and links, it looks to me as if he’s got you cornered on these issues.”
Well Ed it seems that once they got caught with their pants down – sound familiar Ed? By their own admittance Ed, they decided they better find out why their information was skewed since it was false. According to the NSIDC release it appears that there was a malfunction of the satellite sensor which they use to produce their daily sea ice products. Through more careful investigation, it appears that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. Too bad Ligne’s sources and links are bogus. Well Ed you AND Ligne have been caught with your pants on the ground – hat turned to the side! LOL! Got both of you cornered but it is an ugly sight to say the least.
LikeLike
You might be speaking truth, Hexmate. But how could we know? You offer nary a source, nary a link, and when Ligne offers sources and links, it looks to me as if he’s got you cornered on these issues.
LikeLike
Ligne said: “even considering this “recovery”, september 2009 extent was still ~25% down on 1979-2000 average.”
Ligne the fact is this claim is false and the information is without merit. Was it an error? Yes.
There was catastrophic failure of a sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite. The failure caused the false data and incorrectly showed a massive loss of sea ice.
Is that the end of it? No.
It now appears that the sensor’s performance had been degrading for an extended period; assumed to be inclusive of the last two months or so. Hence, all of the data during that period is incorrect. The early evaluation by the NSIDC is that the satellite was under-reporting the extent of sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers.
The NSIDC has no integrity just like you have no integrity so at least you share the same values.
LikeLike
How is it flawed? What have you to indicate to the contrary?
LikeLike
Ed said: “Your imagination doesn’t constitution public knowledge. Your wishful thinking isn’t correct. Your denial of the evidence is the contrary of knowledge.”
Ed it is very obvious that only you and your ilk have the imagination required to perpetrate this kind of farce. Fortunately nobody is buying it. I’m not wishing or guessing, or postulating – that is your department and you would be the expert at conducting these types of shenanigans in order to save face. I only speak the truth but you don’t know what that word means. Looks like you are caught with your pants on the ground – hat turned to the side again! LOL!
LikeLike
Ligne said: “the NSIDC is a fraud, eh? care to provide some evidence, or are you just throwing defamatory comments about without justification?”
Well Ligne you know it is not necessary to make this stuff up because the organization is a fraud and a shill for the global warming farce.
Bad news from NSIDC
26 04 2009
Last year we had the forecast from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze of an “ice free north pole”. As we know, that didn’t even come close to being true. Summer 2008 had more arctic ice than summer 2007, and summer 2007 was not “ice free” by any measure.
In spite of the spectacular failure of Dr. Serreze’s widely quoted prediction, there were no retractions, no apologies for misleading the public, no admissions of error, and inaccurate stories like the one above are still in place. So what could possibly be worse news from NSIDC?
The very man who made that ridiculous statement of “an ice free north pole in 2008″ is set to become the “incoming director” of NSIDC. Apparently alarmism pays, especially if you get press.
Looks that rectal cranial inversion Ed has is contagious and you caught it. Better get to the ER before that gets infected.
LikeLike
Your imagination doesn’t constitution public knowledge. Your wishful thinking isn’t correct. Your denial of the evidence is the contrary of knowledge.
LikeLike
the NSIDC is a fraud, eh? care to provide some evidence, or are you just throwing defamatory comments about without justification?
LikeLike
Ligne said: “2007 being the year with the lowest Arctic sea ice extent in recorded history. cherry picking much?”
No just presenting the facts. Something you should try doing. Your resource is a fraud.
LikeLike
Hexmate said: “as of mid September 2009 there was 24% more ice than just two years earlier, which is over 1 million square kilometers of new ice since 2007.”
2007 being the year with the lowest Arctic sea ice extent in recorded history. cherry picking much?
even considering this “recovery”, september 2009 extent was still ~25% down on 1979-2000 average.
i’d suggest you try reading through http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
LikeLike
When adding the sea ice volumes at both poles there is about the same ice as 30 years ago. Antarctica has 90% of the worlds ice and had the most sea ice ever recorded at the end of 2008, over one million square kilometers above the average maximum. The global sea ice extent today (combined sea ice at both Poles) is nearly the same as the average of the last 30 years according to NASA and NSIDC. View today’s Antarctic sea ice extent compared to the 1979-2007 average (National Snow and Ice Data Center). While it is true Arctic sea ice volumes are less today than the average of the last 30 years the ice there has been growing the past several years and as of mid September 2009 there was 24% more ice than just two years earlier, which is over 1 million square kilometers of new ice since 2007. There is also substantially more multi year ice in the Arctic in 2009 than just one year earlier Antarctic sea ice extent in September 2009 is also growing and is 1 million square kilometers more than the previous year. In 2009 the Antarctic had the most Summer ice ever recorded.
LikeLike
And about those “melting glaciers…”
Strange how research turned up a completely different story. 50 glaciers are advancing in New Zealand, others are growing in Alaska, Switzerland, the Himalayas, and even Mt. St. Helens is sprouting a brand new crater glacier that is advancing at 3 feet per year.
And down south last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite (based on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency’s ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites).
LikeLike
Ed said: “No thanks, we’ll try to act now while it’s cheaper, and while smaller actions can have bigger influence.”
We?! Ed do you have mouse in your pocket? The only act you are doing Ed is the act of continuing this sham or farce on society. Ed – pants on the ground hat turned to the side! Get with it Ed! You crack me up Ed!
LikeLike
Ed said: “As we’ve seen a dozen times before, you can’t cite straight, can’t quote straight, and you don’t know what’s in the literature, nor even in the news reports.”
Ed I present nothing but facts based on public knowledge and all you can do is claim there is no basis for it when in fact it is a well known fact. This is just a little game you play to try and negate the facts that are irrefutable. Now pull up your pants Ed and straighten out your hat you look ridiculous.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Not only did you fail to read any source you found, you failed to cite one. You failed to cite a single source! You’re projecting, Hexmate.”
What’s wrong Ed? The truth is in black and white and you can’t accept it? Ed you have no proof of anything related to global warming and you do nothing but projections to try and support your claim. The only thing stuck in anything Ed is your head so pull it out.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Did you even bother to read any source you found, Hexmate?”
Ed your source is flawed and more importantly no longer has any credibility. You are still purporting speculation and innuendo. You are trying to claim that it is a fact when in fact it is nothing more than speculation and innuendo. So where is your proof Ed? You have none. Pants on floor Ed – hat turned to the side. LOL!
LikeLike
Not only did you fail to read any source you found, you failed to cite one. You failed to cite a single source! You’re projecting, Hexmate.
As we’ve seen a dozen times before, you can’t cite straight, can’t quote straight, and you don’t know what’s in the literature, nor even in the news reports.
The conclusion stands that Himalayan glaciers are melting, faster than they would naturally. The danger remains, and water is already limited in China, India, and other parts of Asia, because of these problems.
It’s like someone comes running to warn you that the dikes are leaking and will fails — and you refuse to do anything because, you discover, there’s some little boy with his finger in the dike plugging the leak. “No worry,” you say. “The dikes will hold. Let’s go home and go to bed.”
You wake up the next morning at sea in your own bed.
No thanks, we’ll try to act now while it’s cheaper, and while smaller actions can have bigger influence.
In the meantime, study this old chesnut about how almost all the world’s glaciers are indeed melting, taking potential ice core records with them.
LikeLike
Did you even bother to read any source you found, Hexmate? Here’s a straight up report of the thing from the New York Times:
LikeLike
Ed said: “So, while the date was wrong, these facts remain”
Ed you have no data and you have no facts – otherwise you would be able to produce them. You can’t and that is why global warming is bunk. Now pull your pants up and turn your hat forward.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Don’t play ostrich with us on this, Hexmate.”
Play ostrich? Ed I don’t know what you are talking about. Is that what they are calling your rectal cranial inversion – playing ostrich? Ed you really need to grab your ears and give a pull.
LikeLike
Ed said: “There was a typo somewhere in the report. The good news is that the glaciers are not predicted to be completely gone until 2350.”
Oh Ed that is simply mere speculation on your part. Where is your data? Don’t have any do you? There you go again Ed – pants on the ground – hat turned to the side! LOL!
LikeLike
There was a typo somewhere in the report. The good news is that the glaciers are not predicted to be completely gone until 2350.
The bad news is that they are melting faster than predicted due to global warming, and there are already water shortages down below. Those glaciers feed seven great rivers upon which more than a billion people depend for water.
So, while the date was wrong, these facts remain:
Don’t play ostrich with us on this, Hexmate. You read the report, right?
It’s good news there is more ice there than can be melted in 25 years. That doesn’t change the problem, only the time we have to solve it.
LikeLike
And the beat goes on – In 2007, the IPCC issued a benchmark report, which claimed to incorporate the latest research into the impact of global warming on the world’s glaciers. A central claim of the IPCC report was that glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035–a claim with absolutely no basis in fact.
For its “research,” the IPCC went on to share the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore!
Unfortunately for the IPCC, the main source of the “research” they utilized was the New Scientist article, based wholly on Hasnain’s speculations.
Had the IPCC really done its homework, it would have uncovered a few things, which would have made it think twice about publishing its report at all. For example:
With respect to Himalayan glaciers vanishing by the year 2035, Hasnain never made such a claim.
So, the IPCC, a UN Agency, wins a Nobel Prize for a “scientific report,” containing “research,” that was nothing more than the multiple paraphrasing of an eight year old article in a popular Indian magazine, which was based upon pure speculation. Now under fire, the IPCC is preparing to retract “elements” of its report.
You couldn’t even make this stuff up.
LikeLike
Moises E said: “Hexmate — you don’t offer links and sources because you’re too stupid, or because you’re such an anal orifice? Which is it?”
Welcome Moises! It is neither. I just present the truth and the facts. Something you obviously have never seen because of your rectal cranial inversion. You better go see you doctor to have that removed before you get an infection.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Of course you don’t have a source! What you claim is not true.”
Hexmate said:
So, Hexmate — you don’t offer links and sources because you’re too stupid, or because you’re such an anal orifice? Which is it?
LikeLike
“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” –Al Bore, citing a scientist who later said he didn’t know where Gore got that information
LikeLike
Ed said: “Odd how, whenever you are asked for an example of the wrong you claim, or documentation in any way of any of your claims, you respond with invective, but no evidence.
Of course you don’t have a source! What you claim is not true.”
Oh certainly it is false Ed because you say so. Anything that doesn’t fit your paradigm or propaganda is false. Yeah these people working on trying to prove this farce are doing it for free! Keep it up Ed your credibility is already in the toilet.
LikeLike
Hexmate, can you cite any spending to prove the physics principle? Please tell us what agency is spending the money, and who is doing the work.
Odd how, whenever you are asked for an example of the wrong you claim, or documentation in any way of any of your claims, you respond with invective, but no evidence.
Of course you don’t have a source! What you claim is not true.
LikeLike
Dear Readers, please check on Ed, he’s fallen and he can’t get up. I’m afraid he is going to suffocate because of his rectal cranial inversion and in that position he has a kink in his neck that is cutting off his flow of oxygen and thus he is being confined to getting only CO2.
LikeLike
Ed said: “It’s only “not cut-and-dried” to the diehard denialists who probably can’t understand the physics, to those on the payroll of companies whose profit lines are expanded by being able to pollute, and others incapable of understanding through physical or fiscal means.”
There you go again Ed with one of your statements that first of all makes no sense, claims nobody but you must knows what is going on, then tries to compromise the facts with you babble about pollution, industry, etc. Pull your pants up Ed and work on statement – you lack any data. Gotta link Ed?
LikeLike
Ed said: “Whoever told you there was to be spending to prove the science either misunderstood your question, or misinformed you. Got a source?”
The source Ed are the idiots that are trying to prove there is global warming! Geez are you dense or what? You can read this in any proposal that has been brought forward although you obviously have ignored this so you be stupid about it.
LikeLike
Ed said: “No one proposes to spend billions to “prove” the physics principle.”
Ed they are spending it you moron!
LikeLike
True. John Tyndall, and Svante Arrhenius noted that increasing CO2 would warm the planet. It’s all detailed in Spencer Weart’s really grand explanation of warming, found at the website of the American Institute of Physics.
No one proposes to spend billions to “prove” the physics principle. There are a lot of questions, such as how much CO2 will cause how much warming in what period of time?, with the answers made complex by things like the oceans’ acting as CO2 sinks, with variations due to variations in temperature, and variations in global dimming, and deforestation.
Whoever told you there was to be spending to prove the science either misunderstood your question, or misinformed you. Got a source?
It’s only “not cut-and-dried” to the diehard denialists who probably can’t understand the physics, to those on the payroll of companies whose profit lines are expanded by being able to pollute, and others incapable of understanding through physical or fiscal means.
LikeLike
Al Gore said in an interview, “A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a — a principle in physics. It’s not a question of debate. It’s like gravity; it exists.”
If that is the case then why spend billions trying to prove it and why spend billions more to study it? Since this is such a blinding glimpse of the obvious there should be no question about it. However it isn’t that cut and dried that is why this is a farce.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Dear Readers, check Hexmate’s posts below. Several have the sources listed from which he plagiarized them. The facts are what they are.”
This is a scream Ed! “Dear Readers?” No Ed the information is public knowledge but of course that scares the pants off of you. The fact is Ed you are lying. Now pull your pants up!
LikeLike
Ed said: “I’d be happy to deal with your regular distortions of reality if only you’d man up and post a source, if only you’d cowboy up and quit stealing material from other people. Theft is a crime, posing is a moral issue. I can’t cure you of that. You’ll have to do something about it from your side.”
Ed your whole life is a lie and you couldn’t be a man if you tried to. All I posted was the facts but you can’t deal with truth because you have been lying for so long you don’t know what the truth is. The only distortion going on is your sense of reality. You have no data Ed and YOU are trying to promote this farce which is probably the biggest heist in the history of mankind. You have morals Ed only your ego which is extremely big and consistent your big mouth.
LikeLike
Dear Readers, check Hexmate’s posts below. Several have the sources listed from which he plagiarized them. The facts are what they are.
LikeLike
I’d be happy to deal with your regular distortions of reality if only you’d man up and post a source, if only you’d cowboy up and quit stealing material from other people. Theft is a crime, posing is a moral issue. I can’t cure you of that. You’ll have to do something about it from your side.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I don’t have time to Google each of your posts to find the links and make the necessary attributions, Hexmate. Please take responsibility for your posts. I’ve put your last dozen or so posts into limbo pending some links or attribution.”
Catalyst Well we know you are busy Ed dreaming up new lies to counter the facts and the truth so I’m not surprised by your comments but I will take responsibility for my posts, just send me your comments that realistically challenge them. Gee Ed your actions are consistent with the global warming clowns – why am I not surprised by your inability to cope with the truth and the facts. Hey – that’s just like Al Bore er Gore! You two really are attached at the butt!
LikeLike
Ed said: “My major concern is that often you post libelous claims, and almost always, you post work you’ve copied from others. That’s called “plagiarism,” which is only a cardinal sin in the rest of the world (but would be a criminal count for government researchers — one more way we can see you don’t measure up to the high ethics required of warming researchers!).”
There you go Ed, making accusations again all the while you conduct yourself in the same fashion. Another one of those realities that you can’t deal with because you have a twisted sense of reality.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Most of what you post is opinion. Sometimes there are allegations that would be facts were there data behind them, but there is no easy way to check.”
Ed they are facts and true statements that you can’t deal with because are counter to your convaluted thought process. Like I said Ed you can’t handle the truth because if messes up your mental models.
LikeLike
Most of what you post is opinion. Sometimes there are allegations that would be facts were there data behind them, but there is no easy way to check.
My major concern is that often you post libelous claims, and almost always, you post work you’ve copied from others. That’s called “plagiarism,” which is only a cardinal sin in the rest of the world (but would be a criminal count for government researchers — one more way we can see you don’t measure up to the high ethics required of warming researchers!).
I don’t have time to Google each of your posts to find the links and make the necessary attributions, Hexmate. Please take responsibility for your posts.
I’ve put your last dozen or so posts into limbo pending some links or attribution.
LikeLike
The proposed laws do not even lower future temperatures, by the standards of the fake global warming models themselves. The Pelosi-passed law is projected to cool the earth by a half a degree in 50 years. They make these faux precise predictions with no sense of embarrassment or irony. While such faux precision is ridiculous, these laws would transfer enormous amounts of income and wealth from average Americans to global plutocrats, corporations and deceitful professors. Yet, Lord Gore insisted this law needed to be passed to save the planet.
How can anyone believe this junk?
[MFB editor’s note: This is came so, unattributedmaterial from David Horowitz.]
LikeLike
When they want to jail people who disagree with them, be skeptical. James Hansen, a senior NASA official and Columbia University professor, proposed just this in June 2008. Hansen is the father of the modern day global warming movement. He first advised Gore in 1988 in a now famous presentation before Congress. People like Hansen are desperate. Their entire life’s work is about to be exploded.
[MFB editor’s note: This is came as is, unattributed material from David Horowitz.]
LikeLike
The researcher bias incentives are ridiculous. Governments are pushing grants on scientists to do ever more study on global warming. Phil Jones group in East Anglia had received almost $20 million in grants to study (i.e., promote) global warming. But grants will stop coming if there is no problem with global warming. When it is in one’s economic interest to come up with one answer versus another, then one needs to be skeptical. An enormous research and manufacturing “academia-industrial complex” is about to go up in smoke. They will do anything to stop this, including “lose data” and silence critics.
[MFB editor’s note: This came as is, unattributedmaterial from David Horowitz.]
LikeLike
Al Gore is a self evident fraud. He promotes policies that transfer tax dollars from your pocket to his. Many alarmists disassociate themselves from Gore because he is not a scientist. But they are the ones who effectively hired him as their chief spokesman and lobbyist. Last month, Gore went on television hyping a Geo-thermal idea and said, with his usual casual pompous certainty, that the earth’s core is several million degrees. That is about the temperature of the sun’s surface. The earth’s core is 5000-6000 degrees. Since he lost the election in 2000 this has been his full time job. If he is so wrong about simple things, then my bet is he is wrong about complex things.
[MFB editor’s note: This is came as is, unattributed material from David Horowitz.]
LikeLike
Ed said: “Could you do us the favor of giving a link, if you can’t find the attribution, please?”
They are facts Ed, what is your problem? You can’t deal with facts? You want to debunk the facts? Just reach on there and pull something out of butt Ed to create a retort. That is what you usually do.
LikeLike
Could you do us the favor of giving a link, if you can’t find the attribution, please?
LikeLike
Whatever the final verdict on the [Climatic Research Unit’s] shenanigans, two things are already firmly established by even a sympathetic reading of these documents. First, the climate-change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls ‘climate tribalism’). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of ‘real’ scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy ‘deniers’ akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what’s really at work is a very large clique of scientists attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology. Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations, and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global-warming ‘consensus.’ The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn’t necessarily mean climate change isn’t happening, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.
[MFB editor’s note: This material came as is, unattributed to the original source, Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online]
LikeLike
Anything to make a buck right Al? The email scandal has possibly cost Al Gore, the “Profit” of Doom, some cold cash. Gore will be attending the Copenhagen conference and was to offer a handshake and a picture for the bargain price of $1,200. But it appears the Goracle has cancelled the engagement due to “unforeseen changes” in his schedule. If he can’t even predict his own schedule, why should we believe his weather forecasts?
LikeLike
When one side tries to shut another side out of the debate, it is typically because they feel their arguments won’t stand up to scrutiny.
These propagandists use various tactics. A favorite is to make people feel guilty if they don’t jump on the “green” bandwagon, and those who do are praised for helping the environment.
LikeLike
Not only is Gore prone to hyperbole, hypocrisy and blatant distortions, he is also a bully. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT wrote about scientists being “in the crosshairs” of Gore, who “tried to bully” them into changing “their views and supporting his climate alarmism.” Lindzen also refers to a failed Gore effort to “enlist Ted Koppel (then a TV host) in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists.”
[Plagiarized from Floyd and Mary Beth Brown]
LikeLike
Speaking of hypocrisy, Al Gore is a living embodiment of it. As he lectures the world on energy use, and lobbies Congress to regulate productive American companies out of business, Gore consumes more than twenty times more energy than the average American, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. This doesn’t count the energy consumption of his jet.
LikeLike
Recently on TV, while discussing geothermal energy, Al Gore made the outrageous claim that “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees.” However, the actual temperature here on earth is between 5,000 and 9,000 degrees. This is a gaffe that if Sarah Palin had made, the media would ridicule as her stupid.
LikeLike
The leading profiteering propagandist is Al Gore. After losing the presidential election in 2000, Al Gore became the leader of the hysteria movement. However, this “Eco-Prophet” has hidden a few inconvenient truths of his own. He just happens to be involved with a venture capital firm that has invested approximately a billion dollars in green companies that stand to make a bundle if Cap-and-Trade becomes law.
LikeLike
Man-made global warming hysteria has long been fueled by people using junk science, fear and hyperbole to support an agenda that they personally profit from. As they attempt to lead the world into a green revolution, these propagandists are hiding the truth that the average global temperature has fallen since 1998.
LikeLike
The most damning indictment of proponents of global warming hysteria is a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. The e-mails even included fantasies of violence against those who question anthropogenic global warming. These e-mails show disturbing patterns of “conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
LikeLike
Just like in the Wizard of Oz, the curtain was torn back and leading proponents of anthropogenic (people-caused) global warming have been caught lying.
Called Climategate, the scandal exposes the global warming shysters who are conning the public into a massive restructuring of the global economy, while attempting to silence any dissent. But don’t expect to see this in our mainstream media, because they are the spinsters who promote this manipulation of data and propaganda
LikeLike
The goals of the climate-change crowd are not reduction in global warming but the enactment of a worldwide system of regulation that puts business under government control and transfers wealth from rich nations to poor ones under the guise of fighting climate change. Should the emissions come down on their own, as they are doing, the excuse for draconian legislation goes, well, up in smoke.
LikeLike
The United States is about to achieve the carbon emissions goals set by the 1997 Kyoto Accords. Once seemingly beyond reach, the United States is already halfway toward meeting the stringent Kyoto goals for reduction in carbon emissions without a cap-and-trade law or a carbon tax or carbon dioxide being declared a pollutant.
LikeLike
Ed said: “What’s your idea, that we should destroy the environment for fun?”
Ed the only one destroying the environment is you with this, hmmm – how did you describe it, bovine excrement you continue to publish! Yeah that is what you called it. A perfect description especially since you try to mix all of the issues together like global warming, pollution, etc., in order to create a smoke screen and avoid the real issue of global warming. We already know the cause of that is not related to anything man does and all of your data has been erased so you have no proof Ed. Of course you didn’t have any proof to begin with but you tried Ed. You see Ed all of the lies keep telling are coming out, but you can’t figure out how to counter them so you lie some more and try to confuse the issue, but it isn’t working Ed. Ed – your pants are down again would please pull them up. You must have some fetish about dropping your drawers all the time. It’s disgusting!
LikeLike
Ed said: “But were you reading it that closely, you’d not have mistaken it as a UN claim, instead of the completely open and transparent publication of advice given to the UN.”
Ed your choice of weasel words to try and dismiss this is a continuation of the scam you are trying to perpetrate, but you can’t hide this farce any longer.
LikeLike
Ed said: “A simple man doesn’t need to puff himself up, nor does he need to exaggerate to make a point.”
Ed we know you are not a simple man because you do these things constantly. Read the crap you continue to write.
LikeLike
Ed said: “We know now that you don’t now the difference between “simple” and “simpleton.” Look them up — they are not the same thing.”
Well Ed the term was used correctly because it acurately describes you. Nuf said.
LikeLike
Ed said: “You really should read newspapers more often. Leipold’s “error” came out of an interview he gave in July, published in August.
Here are the details — different from your claims, Hexmate:”
Well Ed is it is obvious you are trying to squirm out of something again just like the work or maggot that you are. However Ed the lies are getting old and when you are caught in a one lie after another it is undestandable that you would try to cover up. Most worms do Ed. Your pants are still down Ed – pull em up!
LikeLike
You really should read newspapers more often. Leipold’s “error” came out of an interview he gave in July, published in August.
Here are the details — different from your claims, Hexmate: http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/08/gerd-leipolds-kerfuffle.html
LikeLike
We know now that you don’t now the difference between “simple” and “simpleton.” Look them up — they are not the same thing.
A simple man doesn’t need to puff himself up, nor does he need to exaggerate to make a point.
Perhaps more importantly, you’ve missed the entire point of the paper — that we need to be good stewards of the planet, and that people who profess to be environmental ministers in their respective nations should work to that end. Were you a religious man, you’d recognize the Christian theology inherent in that idea, and you’d understand better the statement that non-UN document was trying to make, to UN people.
But were you reading it that closely, you’d not have mistaken it as a UN claim, instead of the completely open and transparent publication of advice given to the UN.
What’s your idea, that we should destroy the environment for fun?
So, now you confess (unwittingly) that it wasn’t the UN at all that said what you claimed the UN said.
As I noted.
LikeLike
Oh oh Ed, better hang on to your pants again – they are falling down again.
People are hoping for “robust political agreement” out of Copenhagen. Some wonder if they’re going to be assuaged by Obama’s EPA ruling that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant threatening the planet? This was the best Obama could do, since Cap and Trade is officially a “dead parrot.”
One of the expected outcomes is a commitment to transfer money from the richer to the poorer nations of the world to help them transition to cleaner energy technologies and combat the effects of global warming. No mention was made as to how anyone can prove these effects are caused by man and not some other means, such as volcanic activity, solar radiation, a slight wobbling of the earth’s orbit, or any of a multitude of other possible causes. Nobody has questioned the reasoning behind the transfer of wealth from the richer to the poorer nations, either. I guess if you accept the premise that mankind is to blame for the warming of the planet, then it somehow naturally follows that American taxpayers are going to get screwed. Bigtime.
The real, actual motivating force behind Copenhagen – Wealth redistribution from the productive democracies to the poorer non-productive thugocracies. If you really want to understand climate change, just follow the money. The representatives of some of the most corrupt and brutal regimes in the world get to decide how much to steal from the single most powerful economy the world has ever known. What could possibly go wrong?
LikeLike
See Ed I told you that you don’t have any data.
According to newly revealed documents authored two years ago, the United Nations believes environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity.”
This global body is urging the world to take the ‘crisis’ of global warming on faith. Father Earth, Al Gore concurs.
There you have it. The world should regard the environment as a religion and take on faith the fact that billions of dollars are needed to fix this so-called man-made crisis.
It looks like the world has no choice in the matter. The scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. Oops. So the scientific data on which the premise of global warming is based are no longer available for peer-review. Sorry. Just take their word that its scientific.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I gotta wonder: Do you at least blush when you tell whoppers like that? Where did the UN say that? Resolution of the General Assembly? Security Council Resolution? An obscure press release? You found it on a napkin near the UN building?”
Ed it is becoming quite obvious that you are more of a simpleton than I first suspected. Eddie you can’t make this stuff up! The ambitious paper, entitled “The UNEP That We Want,” is the product of a select group of 20 top environmental bureaucrats and thinkers, including UNEP’s current No. 2 official, Angela Cropper. The document was later delivered to UNEP.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Actually, that’s relatively easy: No volcanic eruption correlates, hence no correlation; no evidence of solar radiation correlating to the heat fluctuations, no case; wobbling of the orbit is already taken into account, and the warming is significantly higher than wobbling can account for.”
Where is your data Ed? You don’t have any do you? You are a liar Ed! Clear and simple.
LikeLike
Another nail in the GW coffin:
On Thursday, more evidence of climate chicanery came to light – but was again ignored by the media. Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Oops.
LikeLike
Hey Ed even your boy Al Gore said: “This is not a political issue, or a scientific issue or a psychological issue – it’s a moral issue. If anything it’s actually a spiritual issue.” There you have it. If you don’t agree with the unscientific ‘consensus’ than you’re a really stupid, bad and immoral person. The left has spoken and the media agrees. Case closed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “No document. I’d thought Hexmate probably imagined it. Certainly we don’t have enough information to corroborate his claim. AND
I’m in Missouri on this one. Show me.”
Ed you are not from Missouri – another lie. I found the document why can’t you? That’s because you didn’t look because you will be caught in another lie, again! Get your head out of your butt Ed and get off of that lazy behind and go look for it – it’s THERE! “The UNEP That We Want”
LikeLike
Right — James Hansen and, uh, ummm . . . Dr. Polar Bear!
You’re confusing your War on Evolution Theory with your War on the Maldives. People have lost jobs? Who? Where? Sounds specious to me.
Seriously, the only job lost I know of was the guy who was heading the lab in Hadley that got hacked. He resigned to make investigation easier, an ethical act unequalled anywhere on the mau-mauing “skeptics” side.
He’s right on the science, he was robbed, and he lost his job.
From what I know, your description is 100% at odds with the facts. Scientists have been censored and censured in the U.S. for posting their data which show warming. Scientists have been disinvited from the meetings they’ve been assigned for years to attend to discuss climate change. You spoke of projection, and I suppose that should have been a warning that you’d do some.
As I’ve noted before, it would be great news that warming had ended, were that the case. Alas, it’s not.
Think about this for 30 seconds: Fixing the problems from warming takes money from the causes every leftist holds dear, fighting poverty, protecting environment, building less new infrastructure, spending on education and health care, creating quick, non-technical jobs for a billion people stuck in poverty. If you wish to accuse environmentally-concerned people or people on the left of a some conspiracy, shouldn’t you pick a conspiracy that would survive a high school debate round?
Too much CO2 destroys one’s ability to reason. It fogs the mind. Worry about that for a while (you’re way below the mind-fogging level, by the way).
You really don’t know what the e-mail flap is about, do you. Climate science has been conducted by thousands of people world wide, and it is compiled in policy reports by the IPCC and other agencies around the world, for the last 30 years. Before that, we have a solid 100 years of research on the issues in the science community, available in textbooks and libraries around the world.
Where there has been error, there is usually another scientist anxious to correct it with better data, and the science community uses the better data and moves on.
In the e-mail flap, scientists are accused of making a chart for policy makers wrong. In order to make it more accurate, they substituted some known-inaccurate data out, and replaced it with actual temperature readings.
That’s known as “working for accuracy,” and it’s one of the key principles every Boy Scout swears to follow. Why you call it a “lie” would make an interesting psychological study, but it’s irrelevant to the issues at hand.
The chart, by the way, predicted warming to continue from 1995 onward. The chart, alas, fell short of predicting the severity of warming. Warming has actually been proceeding faster than the chart predicted, with more dire consequences.
On the basis of that chart, in a court one would look for a motive — and the motive would fall to a small cabal of denialists who wish to make the projections of future warming less, to stop action against warming and its effects.
Once again, you let logic elude your argument. Why would these scientists fix a chart to reflect your view, opposite to reality?
Lies? Lots of them from your side, and no data. I think I see a trend.
The past decade is the warmest, ever. The past five years saw five of the warmest, ever.
I believe it is immoral and unethical for you to try to cover up that information, and pretend it doesn’t exist.
You turn so quickly to false invective and insult. What happened, glacier melt washed your data away?
If you look back in the old thread, you can find the photo of the ship, formerly used on the massive Aral Sea — the ship now adrift in dunes of sand. The Soviets did that.
Over the past century, many of the most serious environmental disasters were caused by Marxists and communists, believing, as denialists do, that humans can’t possible really affect the environment, and believing that garbage thrown into the air at won’t come down on those who throw it.
It’s no accident that the leading climate scientists are in western industrial nations, that the first inklings of climate change were published in capitalist nations with free-market ideas carrying even into science research.
I cannot imagine what sort of motivation would prompt you to such distortions, so I’ll put it down to “not thought through.” Marxists are no friends of the environment, never have been. Read the history. The great conservationists of the 20th century, with money, were all powerful capitalists — the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, etc.
A little bit of history could help you out in understanding what is going on. Who was it preserved the Tetons until the federal government finally agreed to make it a park?
Your own projection blinds you to what is going on here.
I’m not the one making false claims against conservationists, scientists and science here.
The closest I come to trucking with evil is when I don’t delete the false denialist rants, but instead answer them. Fat lot of good it does — but I believe with Franklin that, in a fair fight, truth wins (which is why we have evidence rules in federal court, I’ve often observed).
Much of what you accuse would be criminal in the U.S., if done by the scientists you allege were doing it. No prosecutions, no convictions, no allegations.
To make the case you’re trying to make, you would need hard data of error.
But as you try to deny, the evidence runs against your claims.
LikeLike
What nonsense. It is the alarmist that
defend their position with invective and insult.
Just look at the larger construction:
In fashion we wish were different but seems all too typical, so-called skeptics of global warming defend their position with invective and insult.
More projection out of the Left. More hysterical and baseless fear. More assumption of moral superiority that they fo not posses.
People have lost their careers in science by standing up to the “Climate Change Mafia”. Further afield, they have lost their careers merely by not being of the doctrinaire Left. You perfectly well know that academia and and the scientific community has been almost wholly overrun and co-opted by the left in the last 30 years. To hold otherwise is just preposterous.
The “climate change” crowd has been caught out in multiple lies, and still you will not admit it. It all has been clearly shown to be a fraud and yet you still give voice to this fraud. This is evil. This is wrong. That you have to even think about this show how low you have fallen in your morality and ethics.
You are living in a false world. You are lying to yourself. You are lying to the rest of us.
The “so-called skeptics” are the voice of reason and civilization. The alarmists are Marxist totalitarians who wish to seize power over us all based on a lie.
Grow up. Stop this nonsense. If you have been duped, then face this. If you are a part of this monstrosity then repent of it and reform your morality.
It is you that truck with evil and not the sober and rational adults who call you out on your mischief.
LikeLike